Chih-Jou Lai1, Chih-Pin Wang2, Po-Yi Tsai3, Rai-Chi Chan1, Shan-Hui Lin4, Fu-Gong Lin5, Chin-Yi Hsieh2. 1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; National Yang-Ming University, School of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan. 2. Department of Emergency, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 3. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; National Yang-Ming University, School of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan. Electronic address: pytsai@vghtpe.gov.tw. 4. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 5. School of Public Health, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify the effective predictors for therapeutic outcomes based on intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS). DESIGN: A sham-controlled, double-blind parallel study design. SETTING: A tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: People with stroke (N=72) who presented with unilateral hemiplegia. INTERVENTIONS: Ten consecutive sessions of real or sham iTBS were implemented with the aim of enhancing hand function. Patients were categorized into 4 groups according to the presence (MEP+) or absence (MEP-) of motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and grip strength according to the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cortical excitability, Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), finger-tapping task (FT), and simple reaction time were performed before and after the sessions. RESULTS: MEPs and the MRC scale were predictive of iTBS therapeutic outcomes. Group A (MEP+, MRC>1) exhibited the greatest WMFT change (7.6±2.3, P<.001), followed by group B (MEP-, MRC>1; 5.2±2.2 score change) and group C (MEP-, MRC=0; 2.3±1.5 score change). These improvements were correlated significantly with baseline motor function and ipsilesional maximum MEP amplitude. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of iTBS modulation for poststroke motor enhancement depends on baseline hand grip strength and the presence of MEPs. Our findings indicate that establishing neurostimulation strategies based on the proposed electrophysiological and clinical criteria can allow iTBS to be executed with substantial precision. Effective neuromodulatory strategies can be formulated by using electrophysiological features and clinical presentation information as guidelines.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To identify the effective predictors for therapeutic outcomes based on intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS). DESIGN: A sham-controlled, double-blind parallel study design. SETTING: A tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: People with stroke (N=72) who presented with unilateral hemiplegia. INTERVENTIONS: Ten consecutive sessions of real or sham iTBS were implemented with the aim of enhancing hand function. Patients were categorized into 4 groups according to the presence (MEP+) or absence (MEP-) of motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and grip strength according to the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cortical excitability, Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), finger-tapping task (FT), and simple reaction time were performed before and after the sessions. RESULTS: MEPs and the MRC scale were predictive of iTBS therapeutic outcomes. Group A (MEP+, MRC>1) exhibited the greatest WMFT change (7.6±2.3, P<.001), followed by group B (MEP-, MRC>1; 5.2±2.2 score change) and group C (MEP-, MRC=0; 2.3±1.5 score change). These improvements were correlated significantly with baseline motor function and ipsilesional maximum MEP amplitude. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of iTBS modulation for poststroke motor enhancement depends on baseline hand grip strength and the presence of MEPs. Our findings indicate that establishing neurostimulation strategies based on the proposed electrophysiological and clinical criteria can allow iTBS to be executed with substantial precision. Effective neuromodulatory strategies can be formulated by using electrophysiological features and clinical presentation information as guidelines.
Authors: Lara A Boyd; Kathryn S Hayward; Nick S Ward; Cathy M Stinear; Charlotte Rosso; Rebecca J Fisher; Alexandre R Carter; Alex P Leff; David A Copland; Leeanne M Carey; Leonardo G Cohen; D Michele Basso; Jane M Maguire; Steven C Cramer Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Svenja Diekhoff-Krebs; Eva-Maria Pool; Anna-Sophia Sarfeld; Anne K Rehme; Simon B Eickhoff; Gereon R Fink; Christian Grefkes Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2017-06-04 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Eline C C van Lieshout; H Bart van der Worp; Johanna M A Visser-Meily; Rick M Dijkhuizen Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2019-12-03 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Franziska E Hildesheim; Alexander N Silver; Adan-Ulises Dominguez-Vargas; Justin W Andrushko; Jodi D Edwards; Numa Dancause; Alexander Thiel Journal: Front Rehabil Sci Date: 2022-02-10
Authors: Zoltán Zsigmond Major; Calin Vaida; Kinga Andrea Major; Paul Tucan; Gábor Simori; Alexandru Banica; Emanuela Brusturean; Alin Burz; Raul Craciunas; Ionut Ulinici; Giuseppe Carbone; Bogdan Gherman; Iosif Birlescu; Doina Pisla Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 3.390